So RL fans seem to know what a union scrum should be like. That's interesting, given the fact that usually they call it boring and slow and so on, it seems they whatch it carefully.A union scrum is NOT just a way to restart the game. Is a game moment when the ball is contestable by both teams, and the advantage of feeding the ball should be little enough to ensure that. If referees don't pay enough attention on this, that's just a case of bad refereeing one part of the game, not the denial of the purpose of playing a scrum.If one team cheats in the scrum to mask its weakness is a very good thing that free kicks and penalties come out to punish them.If you don't like that, fair enough. Rugby League has chosed a different path from union and you are apparently happy about that, but let union play as they like it.

I think that most people, myself included, would question the extent to which RU scrums at the highest levels of the game are really contested these days. If they were contested, then I would expect the ball to be put in straight (something most refs seem incapable/ uninterested in policing) and for there to be more heels against the head. As it is, most of the srummaging action I see on TV seems to involve props not binding properly and scrums repeatedly collapsing - my own theory is that modern rugby shirts are not fit for purpose for props since there is no excess fabric to bind onto. Further down the RU foodchain, I understand that scrums are definitely more contested, just as games tend to be a bit more open.

So RL fans seem to know what a union scrum should be like. That's interesting, given the fact that usually they call it boring and slow and so on, it seems they whatch it carefully.A union scrum is NOT just a way to restart the game. Is a game moment when the ball is contestable by both teams, and the advantage of feeding the ball should be little enough to ensure that. If referees don't pay enough attention on this, that's just a case of bad refereeing one part of the game, not the denial of the purpose of playing a scrum.If one team cheats in the scrum to mask its weakness is a very good thing that free kicks and penalties come out to punish them.If you don't like that, fair enough. Rugby League has chosed a different path from union and you are apparently happy about that, but let union play as they like it.

in australia union and league games are often shown the same time on different pay tv channels

a union fan noted that in the time a union scrum was continually being re-set by the referree he had managed to flick over to the RL and see an entire set of 6 tackles completed.

Five bangs over a wall and a kick ? That's what a set of six is many times. More interesting for you, maybe I would prefer to watch the scrum reset, at least I can understand what's going on. I think it's realy funny your relentless effort to convince union fans that your game is better then theirs. The games are different, why trying to find out wich one is better ?

Five bangs over a wall and a kick ? That's what a set of six is many times. More interesting for you, maybe I would prefer to watch the scrum reset, at least I can understand what's going on. I think it's realy funny your relentless effort to convince union fans that your game is better then theirs. The games are different, why trying to find out wich one is better ?

you might prefer to watch scrums being continually reset, most people would rather just see a guy run or pass a rugby ball.

I think that most people, myself included, would question the extent to which RU scrums at the highest levels of the game are really contested these days. If they were contested, then I would expect the ball to be put in straight (something most refs seem incapable/ uninterested in policing) and for there to be more heels against the head. As it is, most of the srummaging action I see on TV seems to involve props not binding properly and scrums repeatedly collapsing - my own theory is that modern rugby shirts are not fit for purpose for props since there is no excess fabric to bind onto. Further down the RU foodchain, I understand that scrums are definitely more contested, just as games tend to be a bit more open.

RU Scrums are contested at every level, it is easy to see the amount of effort being put in by both packs. Whether they produce a turnover very often is a separate issue and one that also ignores the advantage a dominant scrum will give a team whether or not they win the ball against the head. Disruption or pressure on the opposition's scrum can lead to their backs being given scrappy ball and immediately being under pressure.

RU Scrums are contested at every level, it is easy to see the amount of effort being put in by both packs. Whether they produce a turnover very often is a separate issue and one that also ignores the advantage a dominant scrum will give a team whether or not they win the ball against the head. Disruption or pressure on the opposition's scrum can lead to their backs being given scrappy ball and immediately being under pressure.

There may very well be a great deal of pushing and shoving, but the end result is almost always that the team with the feed gets the ball. A team without the feed in an RU scrum is much more likely to get a penalty than they are to win the ball.

And they just take so bloody long to set up...

When you think about it, RU scrums are an utter farce. They really are. I'd scrap them if I ran the show.

one that also ignores the advantage a dominant scrum will give a team whether or not they win the ball against the head. Disruption or pressure on the opposition's scrum can lead to their backs being given scrappy ball and immediately being under pressure.

Can I just say that this is almost exactly the same issue that faces RL teams at the PTB. The defending team can cause havoc by dominating the tackle and the aftermath of it.

The difference is, of course, that the RU scrum is a thing of subtle nuance and tactical delicacy whereas the RL play the ball is just big blokes humping the ground.

So RL fans seem to know what a union scrum should be like. That's interesting, given the fact that usually they call it boring and slow and so on, it seems they whatch it carefully.A union scrum is NOT just a way to restart the game. Is a game moment when the ball is contestable by both teams, and the advantage of feeding the ball should be little enough to ensure that. If referees don't pay enough attention on this, that's just a case of bad refereeing one part of the game, not the denial of the purpose of playing a scrum.If one team cheats in the scrum to mask its weakness is a very good thing that free kicks and penalties come out to punish them.If you don't like that, fair enough. Rugby League has chosed a different path from union and you are apparently happy about that, but let union play as they like it.

Penalties are there to punish a team when they do something wrong. That suggests that every time a penalty is the outcome from a scrum, then it was wrong, as in that isn;t what was meant to happen at all.

Surely there is a flaw in the system if it is seen as a positive that penalties are given on the back of scrums. Surely that should be the minority, and it should take one time to go in and have a battle for the ball and get on with the game?

It all depends on how you define 'contested'. Union scrums are more physically contested than League, but if you are talking about contesting posession, then they are pretty much the same. The times a scrum is won against the feed in either code is very rare.

I'm afraid this is becoming more and more pointless. Resetting a scrum IS getting on with the game. The game of rugby union, where running, tackling and passing the ball is not all. And penalties are, hopefully, given everytime a rule has been broken, regardless of the moment or the position in the field of play. That's the way I like it. I am a curious man and I enjoy learning new things. I never dare to say anything about something I don't know. I just see here many people writing about the game of rugby union ignoring the basics of the game and using their lack of knowledge to claim an "objective" superiority of rugby league. Did you ever argued whith a Canadian ice hockey fan about the value of speed in itself ? Ice hockey is much faster than rugby league.

It all depends on how you define 'contested'. Union scrums are more physically contested than League, but if you are talking about contesting posession, then they are pretty much the same. The times a scrum is won against the feed in either code is very rare.

My understanding of contested = contesting possession for the ball; is that not supposed to be the primary difference between the two codes?

For those of you who are questioning the merits of putting pressure on an opponents scrums yet not necessarily winning the ball, watch the Austrlia v England match from earlier this summer. England had a far better scrum (which was officiated correctly for a change) and were able to absolutely destroy Australia up front denying the Aussie backs good ball.

Enough of the union stuff. Please keep the discussion within the boundaries of rugby league. I won't move the thread (for now) as the original poster wouldn't be able to access the place these discussions normally fit.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

Competitive/contested scrummaging added another dimension of competition to the game of Rugby League, and made the game more varied and less one-dimensional. Not only that, but the physical demands of scrummaging on the upper body created increased size and different shape for forwards, especially frontrowers i.e. created a difference between forwards and backs. According to neurological and spinal surgeon Dr Robert Bray (at 2:18), a contested scrum can generate up to 1.5 tonnes of Force.

The elimination of the scrum contest removed the need for that upper body bulk. it meant that front and backrowers could slim down to become more athletic and thus focus solely on ball carrying and getting around the field. As a result, there isn't much difference in size and shape between forwards and three quarters. Therefore, little playmakers struggled to unlock defensive lines through passing and playmaking skill, and rulemakers have continually tinkered with ruck/play the ball speed and interchange which ultimately hasn't addressed it. The game can be based on the speed of the carry, the speed of play-the-balls, and exploiting a backpedalling defence rather than unlocking it.

Contesting scrums also won't necessarily mean higher penalty counts. Last year, RL's 3N Kangaroos Kiwis test yielded 20 penalties. The Wallabies All Blacks match in Tokyo yielded 23 penalties, a mere 3 more (plus 3 short arm penalties). Scrum infringements in RL could be dealt with by a differential penalty (IIRC NZ referee Dave Pakieto gave one in an Kangaroos GB test in the Tri Nations 1999 in Brisbane), as SANZAR Rugby Union tried in the Experimental Law Variations of 2007-2008 with short arm penalties for most offences.

When it comes to ball time in play, the number of sets of six, and the number of tries scored in a match, quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality.

As for the issue of scrum resets, Rugby League scrums are still reset frequently due to incorrect feeds that bounce off a prop or secondrowers feet back to the scrumhalf. IMO contested scrums (perhaps without the hit between front rows) could improve RL enormously by reintroducing some variability in size and shape between different forward positions, and between forwards vs backs. Former Great Britain coach Malcolm Reilly was one figure to predict back in the 90s that different positions would tend towards one shape and size, that players could fit across a whole range of position. With the elimination of the competitive scrum, that has come to pass, with backrowers and three quarters interchangable, props and secondrowers interchangable, hookers and halves interchangable.

In a Melbourne - Manly game in April, Storm/NZ Kiwis prop Adam Blair packed down at hooker, with Storm/Aus Kangaroos hooker/dummy half Cameron Smith packing down at lock, and passing off the scrum as if it were the base of the ruck or a PTB. Fullback Billy Slater packed in at 13 as well. The dummy-half packing in at loose forward occurs frequently in the NRL.

It seems that England/GB's forwards have not dominated Australia's packs since pushing in the scrums was abolished.

Competitive/contested scrummaging added another dimension of competition to the game of Rugby League, and made the game more varied and less one-dimensional. Not only that, but the physical demands of scrummaging on the upper body created increased size and different shape for forwards, especially frontrowers i.e. created a difference between forwards and backs. According to neurological and spinal surgeon Dr Robert Bray (at 2:18), a contested scrum can generate up to 1.5 tonnes of Force.

The elimination of the scrum contest removed the need for that upper body bulk. it meant that front and backrowers could slim down to become more athletic and thus focus solely on ball carrying and getting around the field. As a result, there isn't much difference in size and shape between forwards and three quarters. Therefore, little playmakers struggled to unlock defensive lines through passing and playmaking skill, and rulemakers have continually tinkered with ruck/play the ball speed and interchange which ultimately hasn't addressed it. The game can be based on the speed of the carry, the speed of play-the-balls, and exploiting a backpedalling defence rather than unlocking it.

When it comes to ball time in play, the number of sets of six, and the number of tries scored in a match, quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality.

very amusing

its funny seeing all these RL forwards now they dead set look anorexic.